tgbldkam's reviews

A man is murdered because he knows something that is threat to a southern fried psychopathic ex-confederate colonel with politician ambitions.

The dead man's wife vows vengeance.

It's a good concept poorly executed.

Poor characterization, filler scenes, no chemistry between the actors, over top performance by Jeff Fahey, dull script and errors.

One error is, Rumer Willis hair was blonde, but her eyebrows were brown. Why didn't the director have her wear a brown wig?

From my understanding 19th century people did not dye their hair.

This is an issue with making period pieces. A good majority of Hollywood actors are full of Botox and silicon. A few have what is called "The iPhone face." So, when a period piece is made with an actor who had cosmetic surgery or changes the color of their hair, doesn't look natural

Then there is the fake fire in the fireplace.

The film does become interesting in the last twenty minutes.

Here is a better movie where a wife avenges her husband's murder: The Bride Wore Black(1968)

To Hear the birds Singing is about a director and crew making a film about the conquest of the Inca people by Spain. The films purpose is to show the abuse and greed of the conquers.

The production is troubled because the locals do not want to participate in the film.

The crew does not understand the locals and prejudices rise to the surface.

Living among the locals, is a Frenchwoman named Catherine played Geraldine Chaplin.

Her character parallels her own life in Spain.

I wonder if this film was a counteraction to the Christopher Columbus movies of 1992.

Overall, it's a good movie with heart.

Le mariage a la mode is Godard rip off and companion piece to his 1967 movie Week End. (BTW, Godard is mentioned in the film)

Godard's Week End is about civilization falling apart while a couple scheme to rob an elderly relative.

Le Mariage a la mode is about the death of romance. It is pointed out (numerous times) that monogamy (committed relationships) is an ancient bourgeois concept.

The story follows Ariel (Catherine Jourdan) who dumps her sad sack husband for a good looking and unemployable photographer, Jean Michael(Yves Beneyton)

They don't have much of an adventure. All they do is eat, talk, cheat, drink, smoke and get naked. None of it is interesting.

The appearance of Maria de Anges(Geraldine Chaplin) was a bright spot in an otherwise tedious film.

However it did have two good scenes: The shoplifting at the grocery store and Chaplin comically singing.

If you are curious to watch a movie that captures the mood of romance in early 1970's France, than this film is for you.

Also, if you like Godard and want to see a Godard Rip off than this film is for you too.

Der kurze Brief zum langen Abchied is about a German man who goes to America to get away from his ex wife.

This TV-movie is based on a book Short Letter, Long Farewell. In the book the man goes to America in the search of his wife.

In the film, he flees to American after abusing her a lot however she follows him leaving clues for him to find her.

The language of the film starts in German than switches to English than to German than to English and finally to German.

This is suppose to give a sense of Alice in Wonderland however it does not. Though, I think the writer missed the point of Alice in Wonderland. (Celine and Julie Go Boating is a good example of a movie inspired by Alice in Wonderland)

What the viewer gets is arty footage and odd ball characters just to make the film look cool. Also, lot of popular music of the 70's was played.

The issue with the film, the director was too busy trying to make the film look cool and stylish, he forgot about the characters. The character was uninteresting, flat, emotionless and unlikeable.

There is one notable cool scene involving knitting and counting.

I did notice the writers and director didn't understand American culture. There were a few American stereotypes

I gave it a four stars because the music was good and Geraldine Chaplin.

The Children based on Edith Wharton novel about a man who finds himself a guardian to a group of children.

Good: The Acting...however(see bad)

The final scene at the ball.

Bad: Over explanation to keep the viewer from getting lost.

There were moments it felt like I was watching a comedy.

There was a mixture of over acting and under acting.

I wondered if Karen Black purposely paused or she briefly forgot her line.

Joe Don Baker playing another stereotypical good old boy character.

The children were annoying brats. There was absolutely nothing likeable about them.

Some characters were one dimensional.

Ugly:

Rough transition between scenes

Martin is a very unlikable unstable toxic character.

There is a moment where Martin (Ben Kingsley) freaks out in front of the characters, then the next scene, he is walking along cool as a cucumber and no one mentions his freak out.

It felt this movie needed to be longer to get a better grasp of the story.

I am curious to read the book. After watching the film, I have a feeling the book is going to be much better.

Over all, this movie does not have depth, interest and heart.

John is a movie about a teenage prostitute living in L. A.

I understand the makers of the film wanted to show the gritty side of male prostitution and that some of the clients are emotionally fragile men.

However, the film makers were more focus on making it stylish and ignored the story.

The issues of the movie are: Unlikable main character (I have seen movies were the main character was a jerk but at least make him or her an interesting jerk) John, is flat one note character.

The acting is bad.

John begging his friend for food but can afford to live in an apartment!

Transgender phobia: I found it concerning the transgender friend talks about the reason why she transition is because her uncle molested her!

That is incorrect! People who are transgender have gender dysphoria that is not caused by physical abuse.

Too many scenes of John eating.

As I watch I thought about another movie that has similar theme, Sand Dollars(2014). It was a better produced, written and acted movie that didn't miss the mark.

I highly recommend watching Sand Dollars.

Carlos, it is a West German TV movie based on the play Don Carlos by Friedrich Schiller.

The movie set in 1915 America where a land Barron forces the populace to dig in a quarry for silver. He controls the town with brutality. He has own private army to keep everybody in line.

His son, Carlos, joins a resistant group and plots to overthrow his father.

The acting is good and the cinematography is great.

Being a western there are shoot outs, fights and an explosion.

The movie moves along at nice pace.

I have seen movies where the children try to usurp their parents for various reasons.

This movie is one of the better ones.

The movie La Viude de Montiel (The widow of Montiel) is based on a short story by Gabriel Garcia Marquez.

It tells the story of Montiel's wife coping with her sorrows and vengeful villagers.

Jose Montiel committed dastardly deeds to get his riches and his wife realizes what he did after he dies. The realization and her sorrows causes her mind to spiral downward.

The short story is about four pages long. So the writer had to puff out the story. So, characters from other Marquez stories appear in the film. These characters all live in the same village and interact directly or indirectly interact with Montiel.

The movie moves between past and present and sometimes past and present cross paths.

I highly recommend reading the short story first. It can be found in the collection titled: No one writes to the colonel and other stories.

The collection also features the other stories and characters that are touched upon in the movie.

Fun fact: during the production of the movie, Geraldine Chaplin met her husband Patricio Castilla.

Chaplin was great in this film.

Overall its a good movie for people who enjoy symbolism and people who enjoyed Marquez stories.

Warning there is a disturbing scene involving the death of a farm animal.

The director and writer of Amapola, Eugenio Zanetti, I suspect watched too many Disney and musical movies. He decided he was going to make one too with dancing, magic, time travel , Shakespeare and sex.

Also. The director did not do his homework regarding the state of Idaho and American' involvement in Vietnam.

Furthermore, the use of the military coups in the 1960's and the Falkland Island War was pointless.

The love between Amapola (Camilla Belle) and Luke (Francois Arnaud) came across as lust. (Actually, there was a lot of lustful moments in the movie.)

Luke was the worst character in the movie. He was poorly written and Arnaud had no range.

I wanted to know more about the Grandma (Geraldine Chaplin) and her boyfriend. Were they a magical couple? Did they cause Amapola's time travels?

Pointless and silly dance numbers.

The Shakespearean play had no relation to the plot.

On a positive note, the costumes design were excellent.

First, I am going to make a comment on a previous review regarding the straight jacket scene. It was not Geraldine Chaplin in the straight jacket but Amanda Ooms.

However, Chaplin spends most of the movie in a wheelchair.

This movie is about a Buster Keaton Fangirl who goes on a journey to discover more about him. This leads her to a sanatorium where Keaton briefly stayed. There she meets an assortment of odd characters.

Instead of learning anything about Keaton, she is sucked into their alternative reality. And not just her, a struggling actor named Joe, arrives to act in a play for Norma Desmond type character. (This movie answers the question what happened to Norma after Sunset Blvd.)

It's a kooky movie directed by visual artist Rebecca Horn.

The Faces of the Moon is about a group of female filmmakers participating in a jury for an all women film festival.

This is one of those movies where the actors carried the film.

Ana Torrent (Maruja)and Claudette Malle (Annette) did well with what little they had to work with.

And there is an off the wall performance by Geraldine Chaplin.

The theme of the film is sisterhood which doesn't get fully explored.

However with a couple of characters it wasn't clear who they are and what was their role or purpose in the film?

I had the impression the characters would have equal time to express themselves and learn their stories. I was wrong.

One character (played by Carola Reyna) had more of a backstory and a few unnecessary flashbacks. She was main focus of the film.

Overall, it's not a perfect film but it is good.

I watched Judex after seeing Shadowman(1974) both films directed by Georges Franju.

I have read reviews comparing Shadowman to Judex due to both films are about the same character.

In Judex, he's an avenging good guy. In Shadowman, he is the villian.

Judex has a cohesive storyline and Shadowman does not.

The acting is good in Judex. I can't say the same for Shadowman.

In Judex there are cool imagines and artful scenes. The best scene is when a magician wearing a bird mask carries a dove through a house full of party goers.

However, in Judex there were a couple of super easy barely an inconvenience moment.

Judex is an interesting film that will not bore you.

Argentina or Zonda: folclore argentino captures the folk culture of Argentina. It's a beautiful and fascinating documentary about the dances and music of Argentina.

I recently read the current President of Argentina is cutting funding to arts. Thankfully, Carlos Saura went to the country with his camera to record the performance artist.

In the future this film will be considered a time capsule. I hope this film never gets forgotten or lost.

I saw on this Tubi TV and for some reason it was not subtitled but then again it really didn't matter.

As I read some where's once that a little culture doesn't hurt.

I recommend this movie.

The protégé of Robert Altman, Alan Rudolph tried to copy the formula of Nashville and failed.

In Welcome to L. A., soulless characters deal with relationship issues. All the women in the movie hook up with one man.

There were a few useless characters, especially Lauren Hutton's' character. I believe she just put into the movie as eye candy.

Keith Carradine played the same character from Nashville.

The father and prodigal son dynamic wasn't fully explored.

Denver Pyle (whom I remember as playing Uncle Jesse on The Dukes of Hazard) deserved better.

The only interesting about the film was the married couple's(Geraldine Chapline and Harvey Keitel) domestic issues. I wish the entire movie was about them.

The music was awful!

I have seen films and TV shows where someone goes on a quest such as the Indiana Jones movies and the Japanese Anime Fullmetal Alchemist. These work because the characters were interesting, good acting, good writing, good directing and the storyline's were captivating.

So, The Broken Key was a nothing burger.

The acting was bad. The main actor was the worse.

The movie is loaded with special guest stars. I swear this movie was made just to show case these professional actors. (Christopher Lambert, Rutger Hauser, Geraldine Chaplin, Micheal Madsen, Franco Nero and William Baldwin all deserved better movies than this thing).

The dialogue was awful. Characters said the same thing with different words. The music played nonstop.

The storyline was drawn out, boring and overexplained. There were moments I felt I was sitting through a boring college lecture.

The transition between scenes did not flow smoothly.

The sound editing was terrible. Majority of the actors talked in an odd slow flat tone. (with the exception of Baldwin and Chaplin).

This is not a fun bad movie.

One good thing I can say about Broken Key is the visual effects. The opening credits were very good.

I suggest watching the movie with close captioning.

Where to start... It felt like the writers saw Blair Witch, slasher flicks, Nazi exploitation movies, Willi Wonka, The Odessa File, The Boys from Brazil, Frankenstein, and The House without Frontiers (which co starred Geraldine Chaplin) and thought, "Hey lets mash all these films together and see what we get!"

What they got was a big mess!

This movie has three different stories and each story is forgotten.

The accents were bad, expect for Chaplin's. At least her accent was passable.

The villain was a walking cartoon.

The hero's of the story were uninteresting annoying little jerks.

The dialogue was awful.

Also, the only interesting character was the house maid played by Geraldine Chaplin in a small thankless role. I do hope the producers paid her a lot of money for this awful movie.

Seriously, if you want to see a mashed up movie of ideas from other movies, then this is for you!

I have seen two Godard's films, Breathless and Alphaville. I enjoyed both films and when I heard about the premise of the Weekend, I was excited to see it.

I saw it and I was disappointed.

The film is: Obnoxious, Arrogant, Dull, Painful, Gross and Annoying

I have seen better political movies such as The Great Dictator (1940), A Face in The Crowd(1957), Ana and The Wolves (1972) and Wag the Dog(1997). The reason why these movies worked well because it had a well written story with complex characters. The message of the films made me think. Unlike the Weekend which had a in your face attitude with characters babbling inane political philosophy.

The characters were one dimensional idiots.

The film tried to be comical but it failed.

However, the traffic jam scene was great.

This BBC version of My Cousin Rachel is part of numerous versions of the book by Daphne du Maurier. I recently watched the first adaptation(1952) starring Richard Burton and Olivia de Havilland as Rachel.

Its's not bad but it didn't catch the essence of the novel.

De Havilland didn't make a convincing Rachel. Her, Rachel, was too sweet and placid.

This version is not perfect, but it is good. However, the first episode drags. The first half of the second episode is rather droll. Once, Cousin Rachel (Geraldine Chaplin) appears the storyline gets moving. The third episode is the best. The fourth episode is okay, though, there is an illness induce delusion that was too long.

Christopher Guard who played Philip Ashley, talked in a loud voice for most of the time. His acting style was tiresome and annoying.

I do commend Chaplin's performance. She played Rachel as I remember her in the book. Rachel was an enigma. Was she really an innocent woman who is misunderstood and mistreated by men or a cold and calculating shrew?

Overall, there are dull moments, some scenes with Philip lasted longer than it should and a great performance by Chaplin.

I found this version on the Internet Archives.

Spanish title: Tu Que Harias Por Amor.

Just Run! Reminded me of the British kitchen sink dramas of the sixties, such as Saturday Night Sunday Morning and The Loneliness of The Long Distance Runner. These movies explore young men who are disillusion with society who live in cramped housing and drink their sorrows away.

In Just Run! The movie focus on a young man who is involved in criminal gang. It starts with a drug deal gone bad that leaves a friend died. Plus, he has a younger brother who idolizes him.

The film depicts life in late 20th century Madrid as a place of drug addicts and hopelessness.

The movie director, Carlos Suara Medrano is the son of Carlos Suara.

His father made a similar movie in 1981 called Deprisa, Deprisa. There was about three friends who go on a crime spree in a desperate attempt for better lives.

However, Just Run!, feels like an extension of that movie. It shows nothing changed in the twenty years between both movies.

The movie is at it's best when it is focused on the younger brother and his friend.

Suara Medrano even had his dads' ex-girlfriend Geraldine Chaplin play the brother's mom.